The dispute comes down to whether Emergency Medical Technicians Jason Schroyer and his supervisor are covered under the law that protects government workers from liability when they’re providing fire protection.

But far from training hoses at a blaze, the EMTs were traveling to help a burn victim when their ambulance hit Maria Curiel's minivan. She injured her back, neck and abdomen suffers with a permanent disability.

Buckner’s 2011 decision rested on the position that on the day of the wreck, Nov. 22, 2008, Schroyer was not traveling to the site to put out the fire, nor was he representing a fire department. He was acting only as an EMT Basic.

“The plain and ordinary meaning of fire protection is to protect from fire. And I’m having trouble,” she told Waldron.

“I need you to really talk about why what they’re doing has anything to do with fire, I mean they’d do the same exact thing for a car wreck.

Waldron pointed out that medical personnel are part and parcel of emergency response and are always expected to be at the scene of a fire.

On the day of the accident, Maria Curiel was driving on Browning Gate Road in Estill when she slowed down to turn left into her driveway. Schroyer and his supervisor were behind Curiel traveling by ambulance to a house fire on Grant Hill Road to pick up a burn victim.

Schroyer, who said he was driving 45 mph in the 55-mph-zone, said he changed the tone of the siren, sounded the horn and put on flashing lights, before trying to around around Curiel. During a deposition in 2010, Schroyer was 21 years old.

On Tuesday, the Curiels’ attorney, John Nichols, urged the panel to support the trial court's decision, arguing that what Schroyer and his supervisor were doing at the time wasn’t inherent to fire protection.

Nichols emphasized that the pair’s own testimony made clear they were driving to the scene to provide support for the firemen, but while they were en route, they received word that there was a burn victim.

Judges also wrestled with what exactly laws shielding first responders were intended to do.

Judge James Lockemy suggested to Waldron the law he’s leaning on might be aimed at allowing rescue workers to break down doors and damage people’s property during an emergency.

“Don’t you really think the statute is designed for that situation, of making sure firemen and fire people can use their discretion and not be worried about getting sued?” said Lockemy.

Waldron said responders of various stripes should be given room to make decisions in those situations.

“We have to shield our firefighters and our police when they make a decision in one of those gray areas,” he argued. “They just don’t have time to stop and consider all the factors. We’re going to grant them immunity for making the best decision they can under the circumstances. That’s what we have here.”

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.